• Home
  • RSS Feeds
  • Blog Archives
Subscribe to Disputing
Book an ADR Service
Call Karl Bayer
Karl Bayer's Disputing Blog - Mediator, Arbitrator, Court Master & Technical Advisor
About Karl  |  Book an ADR Service  |  Contact Karl   (214) 891-4505

Menu 
  • home
  • Mediation
  • Arbitration
  • Court Neutrals
  • Online Dispute Resolution
  • Technology
    • Intellectual Property
    • Privacy and Cybersecurity
    • E-discovery
  • Court Decisions
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • Fifth Circuit
    • Third Court of Appeals
    • U.S. Supreme Court
  • More
    • Legislation
      • Texas
      • United States
    • Healthcare
    • Guest Posts
      • John DeGroote
      • John C. Fleming
      • Rick Freeman
      • Professor Peter Friedman
      • Honorable W. Royal Furgeson, Jr.
      • James M. Gaitis
      • Laura A. Kaster
      • Professor John Lande
      • Philip J. Loree, Jr.
      • Michael McIlwrath
      • F. Peter Phillips
      • Professor Alan Scott Rau
      • Professor Thomas J. Stipanowich
      • Professor S.I. Strong
      • Richard Webb
      • Glen M. Wilkerson
    • International arbitration
    • Regulation
    • Sports and Entertainment


Apparent Dichotomies, Covert Similarities

0
by Beth Graham

Tuesday, Apr 26, 2016


Tweet

Catherine A. Rogers, Professor of Law, Paul and Marjorie Price Faculty Scholar, and Professor of Ethics, Regulation & The Rule of Law at Penn State Law and Director of the Institute for Ethics, Regulation & The Rule of Law at Queen Mary, University of London, has authored “Apparent Dichotomies, Covert Similarities: A Response to Joost Pauwelyn,” 109 AJIL Unbound 294 (2016).  In her article, Professor Rogers responds to Joost Pauwelyn’s recent publication entitled, “The Rule of Law without the Rule of Lawyers? Why Investment Arbitrators are from Mars, Trade Adjudicators from Venus,” 109 AJIL 761 (2015).

Here is the abstract:

In a recent article, Professor Joost Pauwelyn poses a perplexing question: How can it be that trade and investment are converging in their substantive “legal orders,” but diverging in terms of perceived legitimacy? Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), he argues, is in a “state of crisis” whereas WTO dispute settlement is generally regarded as “successful.” Pauwelyn’s provocative and counter-intuitive explanation for this paradox focuses on the apparent differences between the pool of decision-makers in each regime: WTO disputes are resolved by nameless, faceless, inexperienced bureaucrats who often lack legal training, whereas “investment arbitrators are typically high-powered, elite jurists” with more expertise and experience than their WTO counterparts.

In this response Essay, I challenge some of Pauwelyn’s characterizations of WTO and ISDS decision-making and his related conclusions. I then suggest that the identity of claimants (foreign investors) and nature of remedies (usually large monetary awards) — not the identity of the decisionmakers — are more plausible explanations for the legitimacy gap between WTO and ISDS decision-making. Accordingly, current efforts to make ISDS more like a WTO court structure are unlikely to resolve concerns.

Finally, I examine why lawyers and legal expertise are essential attributes for the adjudicators we entrust with development of an international rule of law, and how international arbitrators in particular have made important contributions to international adjudication.

Many of Professor Rogers’ scholarly papers may be downloaded free of charge from the Social Science Research Network.

Photo credit: U.S. Army Europe Images via Foter.com / CC BY

Related Posts

  • Does International Arbitration Enfeeble or Enhance Local Legal Institutions?Does International Arbitration Enfeeble or Enhance Local Legal Institutions?
  • Mind the Gap: Bringing Technology to the Mediation TableMind the Gap: Bringing Technology to the Mediation Table
  • Digital Accessibility and Disability Accommodations in Online Dispute Resolution: ODR for EveryoneDigital Accessibility and Disability Accommodations in Online Dispute Resolution: ODR for Everyone
  • Designing and Implementing a State Court ODR System: From Disappointment to CelebrationDesigning and Implementing a State Court ODR System: From Disappointment to Celebration
  • Collective Redress Arbitration in the European UnionCollective Redress Arbitration in the European Union
  • Mandatory Arbitration and the Market for ReputationMandatory Arbitration and the Market for Reputation

Like this article? Share it!


  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
    LinkedIn

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window)
    X

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
    Facebook

  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
    Pinterest

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
    Email
About Beth Graham

Beth Graham earned a Master of Arts in Information Science and Learning Technologies from the University of Missouri-Columbia, and a Juris Doctor from the University of Nebraska College of Law, where she was an Eastman Memorial Law Scholar. Beth is licensed to practice law in Texas and the District of Columbia. She is also a member of the Texas Bar College and holds CIPP/US, CIPP/E, and CIPM certifications from the International Association of Privacy Professionals.

Legal Research

Legal Research

Connect with Disputing

Visit Us On LinkedinCheck Our Feed

About Disputing

Disputing is published by Karl Bayer, a dispute resolution expert based in Austin, Texas. Articles published on Disputing aim to provide original insight and commentary around issues related to arbitration, mediation and the alternative dispute resolution industry.

To learn more about Karl and his team, or to schedule a mediation or arbitration with Karl’s live scheduling calendar, visit www.karlbayer.com.

About Disputing

Disputing is published by Karl Bayer, a dispute resolution expert based in Austin, Texas. Articles published on Disputing aim to provide original insight and commentary around issues related to arbitration, mediation and the alternative dispute resolution industry.

To learn more about Karl and his team, or to schedule a mediation or arbitration with Karl’s live scheduling calendar, visit www.karlbayer.com.

Recent Posts

We're Back!!!!
Feb 24, 2025
JAMS Welcomes Karl Bayer to its Panel of Neutrals
JAMS Welcomes Karl Bayer to its Panel of Neutrals
May 28, 2024
Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreements: The Twenty-First Century Arbitration Battleground and Implications for the EU Countries
Nov 27, 2023

Featured Posts

Tips on Taking Good Remote Depositions From a Veteran Court Reporter

Online Mediation May Allow Restorative Justice to Continue During COVID-19

Remote Arbitration Best Practices: Witness Examination

Search

Legal Research

Legal Research


© 2025, Karl Bayer. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy